Warbird Information Exchange

I'm 99% sure that 4,848.5lbs is the empty weight from what I have in front of me. I wrote it down about 10 yrs ago when I was helping with the condition inspection but my handwritting isn't the best. I'm not sure about lead, I'll check the next time I'm out there.

As for the brakes, I can tell you from personel experience that the set up works beautifully. I accidentally got the tail off the ground while standing in place during a run up several years ago. Scared me down about five pounds or so.

_________________
Brad

with a R-1830 on the nose, the engine weight is about 1500lbs, the 1340 was 715 lbs. also the props would be a large weight increase, the T-6 prop is about 180lbs, and the 23e50 is about 450lbs. so there is about a 1050lb increase, and if they increased the oil capacity, to 24 gallons, add another 90lbs.


If they moved the battery, and oil tank to the tail cone, that is a weight shift of about 90lbs (12 gallons) in oil, and another 80lbs for the battery. throw in a smoke system, and that is a bit more weight, but there still should be a good size chunk of lead back there.
I don't have a 6 W&B to play the numbers on, but it would be interesting to see how it comes out.

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook

As long as people are talking about making a Harvard/T-6/SNJ look more like a Zero, I've always wondered why, with all of the attention to detail, when the TTT a/c were made, why didn't they come up with a more accurate horizontal stab & elevator? Was there a reason they couldn't go to the trouble to mount, say, BT-13 stabs & elevators to give it a more Zero-like tail? BTW, I used a BT-13 tail as an example because they were using BT-13s already & the horizontals would be closer in appearance than stock T-6 horizontals, but there is probably something even closer in shape. Or maybe they could have modified the stock stabs & elevators by adding extensions to give them straight tapers to the tips. I mean these TTT Zeros look so accurate until they peel off & there are the big ol' round T-6 tails. Just wondering.

With regard to the weight comments . . . to better judge as a comparable to "regular" TORA movie Zeros, the one I own and fly (tail number AI-101, aka TORA 101) has an empty of a bit over 4400 lbs.

CCF4-2064 is a late 1952 CC&F built Harvard IV, with the 140 USG fuel system, plus all of the TTT movie mods, and the geared R1340 engine and 3 bladed prop/spinner. Plus over the years, I've been lucky to be able to add all sorts of goodies like three GPS's, WX, 4 moving maps, Dynon EFIS ADI, Sandel HSI, Aspen terrain gauge, complete backup of regular flight instruments, TruTrak 3 axis autopilot, full JPI EDM700-9C engine/fuel computer, Redline brakes, smoke system, propane/oxygen gas guns, back seat, 70 lb Concorde battery + BatteryMinder in the hell hole (and for CG another 20 lbs of lead back there) . . . et al et al et al.

Doug Jackson

PS--and the best Zero at least in my mind . . . of course . . . mine! lol